topicality views

[Jennifer Rigdon <jrigdon@semovm.semo.edu>]

>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:29:19 -0600
>Reply-To: Sean.Tiffee@house.state.tx.us
>Sender: owner-CEDA-L@cornell.edu
>From: SEAN TIFFEE <Sean.Tiffee@house.state.tx.us>
>To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate  <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
>Subject: topicality views
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
>
>I'm curious about how a lot of the critics out
>there view T.  If there has already been a
>thread on this and I am only rehashing old
>issues, sorry.
>
>There was a round where we ran T, and the
>Affirmative had no counter-definition, no
>counter-interpretation, no counter-standards
>and no "we meet" answers.  All they did was
>indict our interpretation as being bad.  We did
>drop a ballot this round, and I'm curious how
>people see this.

I believe, Sean, that I judged you and your partner at Pi Kap right after
the round you mention!  In part, I think it depends on *how* they indicted
your interp of T - if they are simply saying that you have a bad interp, the
end, then as a critic I have no compelling reason to ignore your interp.
>
>To me, the Affirmative is topical until
>challenged.  

I have no problem with that.

After the T shell is read the
>Affirmative is not topical because they do not
>meet the Negative interpretation (which is a
>clear violation of the resolution, as opposed to
>"I read the 1AC, therefore I am Topical")

I don't know that I agree that the shell prima facie (sp?) makes the Aff
untopical, but I would agree that their position as a topical case has
certainly been challenged, and they need to respond carefully and
thoughtfully to the negative T interpretation/arguments.
>
>Even if the Affirmative can prove that the Neg.
>interp is bad...what is there to look to, if there is
>no counter-interpretation to look to? 

Agreed, there needs to be a similar counter interpretation by the aff if I
am expected to somehow weigh the arguments against one another.

 If the
>Affirmative's presumption of being topical is
>gone the moment the T shell is read,

I don't think that the notion that the aff is topical is gone the minute you
finish the T shell (see above) I think their topicality has been questioned.
A defendant on trial is not presumed guilty (ostensibly) as soon as opening
statements by the prosecution are finished.

 then
>shouldn't the Affirmative have to prove a
>counter-interpretation that is better than the
>Negative's (and supported by a definition and
>standards) to win? 

I agree that the aff must present counter standards/interp if they are to
successfully argue against a well developed negative T position - including
defs & standards.  (No RVI's though please :)  )

 So, even if the Negative
>interpretation is proven to be bad (because it
>onerlimits, for example), it is still the only
>interpretation in the round so shouldn't the critic
>have to vote on it?

If the neg interp is the only interp in the round, it is the one I have to
look to - Hey that's just my opinion - I could be wrong!!

Say hi to Leslie for me!!
Jen
>
>Just curious how you feel

I feel fine, thank you!! :)

>
>Sean
>SWT
>


SEMO Forensics
573/651-2514

---

• Prev by Date: topicality views
• Next by Date: Re: topicality views
• Prev by thread: Re: topicality views
• Next by thread: Re: topicality views
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page